Saturday, May 25, 2013

“High school students are being told to
take more rigorous math and science courses if they want to be prepared for
college and get lucrative jobs in STEM careers.” (“High School Students Taking
More Math and Science Courses,” May 23).

Will
taking more rigorous math and science courses lead to “lucrative jobs in STEM
careers”? Maybe not.

There
is published data that suggests that American students are taking more math and
science than the economy needs: According to Ed Week, in 2009, 16% of high-school
seniors had taken calculus, but according to Michael Handal of Northeastern
University, only 5% of new openings require calculus.

Rutgers
Professor Hal Salzman has concluded that there are two to three qualified
graduates for each science/tech opening. Studies
have also shown the US is producing more Ph.D.s in science than the market can
absorb.

Why
are we promoting STEM preparation so vigorously?

Stephen
Krashen

Original
Article: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/college_bound/2013/05/high_school_students_taking_more_math_and_science_courses.html

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Anthony Cody has posted an interesting (and chilling) vision
of the future of education, predicting that by 2018 all teaching will be
strictly controlled, with frequent testing, classes monitored and taped for
regular inspection, and teacher evaluation based, among other things, on
value-added analyses of student test scores, and videos evaluated by outsiders.

I wonder if Anthony is being too optimistic.There may not be any professional teachers
left in the schools in 2018.I suspect
that the plan is to vilify and push out teachers, and replace them with temps,
part-timers, and technology. The goal, the only goal, is to make a lot of money
for the .01%.

The details:

The goal of the war against teachers is to eliminate the
concept of teaching as a profession, to be replaced by temps (eg Teach For America)
and eventually be replaced largely by technology (ultimate goal of flipped
classrooms). The reason is 100% financial – so that the .01% can grab nearly
all of the money teachers earn as well as profit from electronic/virtual
teaching.

The .01% want as much of the (at least) 500 billion we spend
yearly on education as they can get.

The .01% plan

1.Keep pressure on teachers by making their lives
as difficult as possible and their task totally impossible. The common core
standards and tests are a major part of this.

2.Continue to attack the teaching profession: The
message will continue to be that the US is in economic trouble because of bad
education, which is because of bad teachers.

3.The public, media, and politicians will have no
sympathy for teachers’ pointing out how difficult teaching has become, This will
be seen as whining, and teachers will then resign/quit in greater numbers.

4.Continue to stress the importance of teacher
evaluation, This sends the message that teachers are not doing their job and
that there are a lot of bad teachers out there who must be identified and
fired.

5.Continue to push the idea that TFAs as just as
good or better than experienced teachers.

6.Do not reward teachers for experience, for years
of service. This will also encourage more experienced teachers to
retire/resign, creating more room for lower-paid temps in the system.

7.Gradually increase the percentage of teachers
who are temps as teachers retire and as they leave the profession because of
frustration, This releases money because experienced teachers cost much more
than temps. The result is more money for technology.

8.Continue to convince the public that all
technology is wonderful. Use this to push flipped classrooms and glorify the Khan
Academy.The role of teachers will then
be diminished to the equivalent of TA’s. This reduces time spent in classrooms
(lowers salaries even more), and lowers the status of teachers even more, as
well as saving more salary money and increasing teacher frustration. Hire part-timers (no benefits) to serve as
supplements to virtual teaching. This will be promoted as expanded opportunity
for jobs, no teaching credential required. The public will accept this because they will have
lost all respect for teacher credentials.

Look for even more attacks on teachers and teachers unions. This
makes sure there is no sympathy for teachers when they complain and no public
outcry when teachers leave the profession and are replaced with temps and
part-timers.

The above is a reasonable and likely scenario. My conjecture
is that in addition, the reformers will continue to expand testing, will charge
students for taking the required tests, and in fact make it illegal for
students not to take the exams.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

``Today a reader,
tomorrow a leader.” Those famous words of 19th century critic and
journalist Margaret Fuller are reflected in the values of the five grand prize
winners of the Korea Times-hosted 2nd International English Contest.
The awards were presented Friday.

``Reading is my all-time
favorite hobby,” said Song Jee-un, eighth grader at Oryun Middle School, who is
one of this year’s grand prize winners in the English Proficiency division. ``I
always kept consistent in my reading because I enjoy it a lot, but winning this
prize came to me as a surprise.

The 14-year-old said she
didn’t think she would get graded so high in her English skills, but is grateful
for the award because it will be a great addition to her credentials.

Another student who was
surprised was Kang Sung-hye, student at Gyeongbuk Foreign Language High School.

``I hadn’t even planned
on participating in the competition because I wasn’t confident, but I’ m so
thankful to my parents because they trusted my English skills till the very
end, said Kang, smiling cheerfully. ``And they are actually the ones who filled
out and submitted the application form for me.

Kang said she reads many
different genres of story books in English and also listens to English story
cassette tapes at night.

``I find it fun to listen
to English tapes before going to sleep because it’s like listening to bedtime
stories, she added. ``But it was actually a pretty helpful pointer in improving
my English skills.

The youngest winner Seo
Hwee-tak, third grader at Du Jeong Elementary School, also credited his winning
to constant reading.

``I love reading, said
Seo, as his mother agreed. ``My son enjoys reading newspapers. He always reads
The Korea Times to help him get a firm grasp of English writing.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The real reading
problem in England is that policy-makers in education have not read the
research on literacy development.Results are very consistent: (1) Direct instruction in grammar and spelling
produces very limited results. (2) Nearly all of our knowledge of grammar and
spelling is acquired, absorbed, through extensive reading.

These studies have been appearing in scientific journals
regularly for over the last 100 years. Policy-makers are free to disagree with
the research, but not free to ignore it.

Much of
the confusion about the “reading wars” (“Reading wars pit literacy instruction
methods against each other,” May 14) is a confusion of terminology.

What the article
calls “phonics-based
instruction” is actually “intensive systematic phonics instruction,” a view of
phonics that insists we teach all children all the major rules of phonics in a
strict order.

Whole language is NOT look-see (or look-say). It is firmly
based on the hypothesis that we learn to read when we understand what is
written, when we understand the text.Some knowledge of phonics can be helpful in making print more comprehensible,
but there are severe limits on how much phonics can be directly taught and
consciously learned: many of the rules are very complex with numerous
exceptions. They cannot be taught but are gradually acquired, or absorbed,
through reading.

Research supports whole language: Published scientific
studies show that intensive systematic phonics is effective only for performance on tests in
which children pronounce lists of words presented in isolation. It has only a
microscopic influence on tests in which children have to understand what they
read -- tests of reading comprehension given after first grade. Prof. Elaine
Garan concluded that this was the case in The National Reading Panel Report and
other studies show this as well.

Study
after study has shown that performance on tests of reading comprehension is
heavily influenced by the amount of self-selected free voluntary reading that
children do, strong evidence for whole language.

The
whole language position described here is very similar to the position of authors of Becoming a
Nation of Readers, a book widely considered to provide strong support for
phonics instruction:“...phonics instruction should aim to teach only the most
important and regular of letter-to-sound relationships ... once the basic
relationships have been taught, the best way to get children to refine and
extend their knowledge of letter-sound correspondences is through repeated
opportunities to read. If this position is correct, then much phonics
instruction is overly subtle and probably unproductive.”

Stephen Krashen

Original
article: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/161650/reading-wars-pit-literacy-instruction-methods-against-each-other/

David Kirk (“The rebellion against
high-stakes testing,” May 27) feels that
the common core offers “an opportunity to recognize the mistakes of the No
Child Left Behind era.”

Unlikely.

Enforcing the new standards will require
testing far beyond the already excessive levels demanded by NCLB. Documents
from the US Department of Education and PARCC, one of the organizations
developing the tests, make it clear that testing done at the end of the school
year will be expanded to include all subjects that can be tested and more grade
levels (K-12!). There will be “interim” tests given through the year and there
may be pretests in the fall to measure growth through the school year.

This means about a 20-fold increase in
testing over NCLB.

The cost of implementing these
electronically delivered national tests will be enormous and we can expect it
to increase, as computer upgrades and replacements are inevitable, bleeding
money from legitimate and valuable school activities.

There is no evidence that all this
testing will improve things. In fact, the evidence we have now strongly
suggests that increasing testing does not increase achievement.

Monday, May 13, 2013

Missouri plans
intensive remediation for students a year or more behind in reading (“Holding
children back called 'the last option',” May 12).

I hope the remediation includes
improving access to interesting reading material.

Study after study shows that
students of all ages can make remarkable progress if they develop a reading
habit. The research literature is filled
with cases of those who started to read late, often around ages 10 to 12, but
became voracious readers. Learning
to read late did not prevent many eminent people from reaching the highest
levels of literacy. Einstein is reported to have learned to read at age 9,
Rodin at 10 and Woodrow Wilson at 11.

In all of
these cases, readers made rapid progress once they began reading material they
were genuinely interested in of their own volition, and all had the advantage
of having easy access to books.

The real problem is that many children do not have easy access
to books. Children in poverty are the most likely to be behind in reading, and
they also have the least access to books. For these children the only source of
books is the library.Studies
consistently show that better libraries, staffed with qualified librarians, are
associated with higher reading achievement.

Let’s at least include this more pleasant, less expensive
path, demonstrated again and again to be highly effective.

Friday, May 10, 2013

The government is planning to collect
an astonishing amount of detail in order to get a more precise measure of
student poverty (“Plans aim to determine
students’ socioeconomic status,” May 9).

This will cost millions in data
gathering, and analysis, followed by changing guidelines and evaluating the
results of the changes.

We have more than enough data to
accurately identify which students live in poverty and a great deal of evidence
showing that students living in poverty do poorly in school because they suffer
from hunger and malnutrition, have inadequate health care and have little
access to reading material.Instead of
measuring the problem, we need to invest in solving it, improving food programs,
health care and school libraries.

The building is obviously on fire. Lets
put out the fire now, without first developing expensive and more precise ways
of measuring the temperature of the blaze.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Reading aloud to Kindergartners
at Dixon Elementary in Elmbrook is being reduced, because it is “passive.” (“Elmbrook turns page with new literacy curriculum,” May 7).

Hardly.

The research on reading aloud to children
is very impressive: Children who are read to regularly outperform children not
read to on a wide variety of measures of language and literacy: they develop
higher levels of vocabulary, grammar, and a better knowledge of how stories are
constructed, which helps make book reading more comprehensible.

Even more important, read-alouds increase
enthusiasm for reading. Anyone who has worked in elementary school (anyone who
has been to elementary school) has seen this: The teacher reads Charlotte’s Web
to the class; the book disappears from the school library and local bookstores.
Children go from there to Stuart Little and The Trumpet of the Swan, and
eventually to fine authors such as Judy Blume. The result is a lifetime reading
habit, and very high levels of literacy.

Stephen Krashen

Some sources:

Brassell, D.
2003. Sixteen books went home tonight: Fifteen were introduced by the teacher.
The California Reader 36 (3): 33-39.

Bus, A., M. Van
Ijzendoorn, and A.Pellegrini. 1995. Joint book reading makes for success in
learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of
literacy. Review of Educational Research 65: 1-21.

“Transformation is possible
…”(April 19) contains ideas for improvement,
but the suggestions should not be framed as a response to the accusation that
the US has been failing in science education: “…. universities are squandering talent at a
time when U.S. higher education is being criticized for not turning out enough
science-savvy graduates to keep the country competitive”(p. 292).

There is good evidence that
this accusation is false: There is no evidence that American science education
is failing and no evidence that we face a shortage of qualified STEM
professionals.

American
students are doing well not only in science and math but in other subjects as
well. Our unspectacular scores on
international tests are because we have so many students living in poverty,
23%, the second-highest among all industrialized countries. When researchers
control for poverty, American international test scores are at the top of the
world. In fact, middle class American students in well-funded schools outscore
students in nearly all other countries on international tests. Poverty means
poor nutrition, poor health care, and little access to books: All of these have
powerful effects on school performance.

The
US produces more top science students than other countries: On the 2006 PISA
math and science tests, 60,000 American students scored in the top category,
compared to 34,000 Japanese students. Also, American students are taking more
math and science than the economy needs: In 2007, 30% of college-bound
high-school seniors had taken calculus, but only 5% of new openings require a
math/science background.

According to
Rutgers Professor Hal Salzman, there is no shortage of science and technology
graduates. In fact, Salzman has concluded that there are two to three qualified
graduates for each science/tech opening. Studies
have also shown the US is producing more Ph.D.s in science than the market can
absorb.

There
is good evidence that contrary to popular opinion, we are turning out more than
enough “science-savvy graduates.”

Saturday, May 4, 2013

PARCC* is now inviting
us to review performance level descriptions and an “accommodation” manual” to
help them develop more tests (http://parcconline.org/reminder-parcc-seeks-public-comment).

As usual, we are not
invited to discuss whether we need these tests. For those who haven't been
paying attention, the US Department of Education, through PARCC, is planning to
impose more testing than has ever been seen on this planet, far more than is
helpful or necessary.

Those who accept the
invitation to discuss performance level descriptions and the accommodation
manual will have the impression they have a seat at the table. In reality, these
kinds of invitations are a means of control, diverting attention from the real
issues.

"The smart way to
keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum … That
gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time
the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the
range of the debate" (N. Chomsky, The Common Good, p. 42, 2002)

The problem in
American education is not a lack of appropriate tests. The problem is poverty.
Our students from middle-class families who attend well-funded schools score at
the top of the world on international tests, and when poverty is controlled
statistically, American students rank near the top of the world.

The US has the highest
level of child poverty among all industrialized countries. If all our children
were protected from the effects of poverty our overall international test
scores would be spectacular.

Poverty means little
health care, poor nutrition and little access to books and has a devastating
effect on school achievement. The best teaching is ineffective when children
are hungry, ill, and have nothing to read. The impact of poverty could be
profoundly reduced if we invested more on food programs, health care, and
libraries, instead of on useless standards and tests.

We have been told not
to worry about these things but support the movement to invest instead in more
testing, and to debate whether the proposed rubrics for the fourth-grade
writing assessment are appropriate.

Susan Ohanian notes
that issuing standards is like presenting menus to starving people. Now PARCC
is inviting us to discuss what should be on the menu.

“PARCC is an alliance
of states working together to develop common assessments serving nearly 24
million students.”